What did Jesus mean by "this generation"

by Fisherman 31 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  JCanon

  What does "this generation" really mean?

  People are asking the same questions, over and over. Even though the answers are provided, they still look in vain. They look but in vain they look for they cannot see it. It has been hidden from them.

  The GENERATION refers to up to 80 years after the first sign. The first sign is "nation vs nation, kingdom vs kingdom" meaning a world war. That world war was WWI. So 1914 marks the beginning of that 80-year generation. The last sign is the second coming. Christ's arrival again back in the flesh. After all, it would be much of a second coming as a man until Christ appeared in the flesh again as a man, now would it? Even so, 1994 is the cutoff for that event.

  Per precise an corrected Biblical chronology, the year of the second must occur sometime between November 30, 1992 and April 6, 1993. It has to happen then or the Bible isn't true. Of course, 1992-1993 is within the 1914-1994 generation. So essentially, all is well.

  "Let he that has ears, listen.."

  JCanon
• 

  Fisherman

  Jc, Jesus said that the world would behold him no more. Since Jesus gaave his flsh and blood as ransom, how could he return in the flesh?
• 

  Fisherman

  Jc, it is an assumption that the signs given by Jesus in his prophecy occur in chronological order. Even 1914 has been chalenged remarkably on this forum. Russel believd that the end should have come in 1914, when it did not, Pastor Russel changed it to the beginning of the end. The end has been comming ever since. Generartion has transformed it self to many meanings.
• 

  Leolaia

  The end did not come in the first century though.

  That's right. But what does that have to do with an exegesis of the text?

  I challenge that statement by JCanon. If it was so clearly prophesied to occur during the end times, how did it slip past so many centuries and generations? .... They meant that the generation that was standing at the moment was the one that saw "the destruction of Jerusalem." Nothing more.

  No, the "little apocalypse" of the synoptic gospels does NOT only have the destruction of Jerusalem in view. The generation experiences not only that event but Judgment Day as well, all the signs given in the oracle; the two events are closely associated in time (cf. the eutheós of Matthew 24:29 and cf. especially ch. 13 of Mark, which does not distinguish the destruction of the Temple in v. 2 from the parousia of the Son of Man in v. 24ff which occurs en ekeinais tais hémeras "in those days"). The "experts" would probably point to parallels of the apocalyptic scenario in these chapters with those relating to the final judgment found in 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, 1 Enoch, and other works of the period.
• 

  JosephMalik

  Intesteresting view Josephmalik but a genration that spans thouands of years is not consistent with the way the Bible uses the word generation. It seems to me that a generation means people living at a particular point in time, for example the generation of Jesus age, but I woud like to hear more support on your view.
• 

  JosephMalik

  Interesting view Josephmalik but a generation that spans thousands of years is not consistent with the way the Bible uses the word generation. It seems to me that a generation means people living at a particular point in time, for example the generation of Jesus age, but I woud like to hear more support on your view.

  Fisherman, I am not saying that this generation spans thousands of years. What thought I was saying was that the Gospel age which did span thousands of years for which Jesus also provided details during this prophecy would end when the Gentile times end. That is winy Matt and Mark did not use the word Jerusalem as Jesus did but used Daniel's expression of holy place instead when they interpreted it. This tells us what the Jerusalem that they could see now stood for at such an end. We should not be a part of it and get out. This is what many on here have already done. It would be at this end that this generation would appear and the signs would become visible. He was talking about a future "this generation" but describing it as if it was already taking place like in a vision. So it was not merely this generation that I was pointing to but the few years during this generation when the prophecy would be fulfilled and the sign would now be visible. This has been discussed many times before on JWD so there was no need to detail events further. As Leolaia brought out this is also the start of Judgment day wnen the resurrection of the human race takes place. Daniel brings this out as does Matt 25:31 and its details to say nothing about Paul and his detailed explanations if. Joseph
• 

  Fisherman

  Leolia,

  "this generation" certainly means the generation of Jesus day You also seem to say that it parallels Judgement day. That is what the wts teaches, a double fulfilment.

  In Jesus day this generation proved to be about 70 years from his birth or 40 years after his minstry. (If he is the reference point).

  "this generation" may also have a double fulfilment if all other parts of the prophecy also have multi fulfilments or 'this generation" part of the prophecy may only have the first centtury fulfilment single fulfilment.

  I am considering a lot of diferent perspectives(Joseph Malik) that I never saw before from the posters here. But I would like to hear and simply put what does "this generation" mean in math 24:34
• 

  Leolaia

  (A) "this generation" certainly means the generation of Jesus day You also seem to say that (B) it parallels Judgement day. That is what the wts teaches, (C) a double fulfilment.

  No, that's a non sequiter. (C) does not follow from (A) + (B).

  The notion of a "double fulfillment" is not motivated by the text itself; it is read into the text in order to harmonize it with post facto external considerations. So the WTS and other interpreters artificially partition the text into different "fulfillments". But indeed, not only is this a foreign notion (owing to eisegesis, not exegesis of the text), it is also precluded by the logic and plan of the original passage.

  That Judgment Day didn't come so soon doesn't change the fact that it was expected so soon. The text doesn't say that "this generation" parallels a later generation of the far distant future that sees Judgment Day, nor does it really allow such an interpretation. It is very easy to read an ancient text from our contemporary standpoint thousands of years later and read it in a way that makes sense to us, it is much more difficult to take a text on its own terms and try to read it as it was written without two thousand years of baggage getting in the way.

  I would recommend getting a good critical commentary (such as Nickelberg for 1 Enoch, Davies & Allison for Matthew, Collins for Daniel, Aune's three part commentary for Revelation) to get a clearer idea of how apocalypses should be interpreted. Also, Dale Allison's Resurrecting Jesus has an excellent discussion on Jesus and apocalypticism and the theological implications of an apocalyptic Jesus.
• 

  dawg

  I get to tickled at you whom think the bible is accurate and prophetic; especially given the fact that so much of it has been disproven... Adam and Eve and the like... the fact that Jesus thought that A&E were real and that he was the "ransom" scarifice for Adam, a man that didn't exist, should have told you something.

  Jesus was clear, he was talking to his apostles and was saying their generation... you who want to believe this mess take that and run with it becasue what he said didn't come true, you have to redefine it to make it work, thats becasue it doesn't work in reality... so we have you guys flipping to and fro looking for scriptures in Daniel and the like so you can try and prove that Jesus was correct, that he didn't mean the generation of his apostles...THat's becasue it would mean his predictions didn't come true... in the end, its really just that simple, Jesus was wrong...

  My goodness people, read what it says, see if you can simply take what Jesus says and see if that works... if it doesn't that means he was wrong... its really simple

  Do just as you did when you finally realized that the JWs were wrong.....
• 

  Leolaia

  There is a curious parallel with Rutherford's 1919 declaration "Millions Now Living Will Never Die" which AT THE TIME referred to those living in 1919 who would see the tranformation of the world into a paradise in 1925. The slogan did not mean anything other than that. This proved to be a huge disappointment for the Bible Students, and Rutherford admitted to being a jackass in setting such a date. But when he proposed a new "Jonadab" class in the early 1930s, he found a new way to salvage this slogan and reuse it. Now, it no longer was the world at large that would see the paradise, but a new class of Christians who would not have to die before the end (as it is with the anointed). Thenceforth Rutherford claimed that the "great multitude" are the "millions now living who will never die". I think the Society to this day still uses this expression to refer to the great crowd, even though those who identified with it in 1935 are now mostly dead. It would be a mistake for a person in 2019 to observe that, in fact, since the "millions" of 1919 were now virtually died away, Rutherford COULD NOT HAVE MEANT what he meant in 1919. Of course he meant that "millions" "now living" in 1919 would never die. The later interpretation has nothing to do with the original sense and context of the slogan. And the failure for millions in 1919 to live forever not does mitigate the import of what was said.